Interesting... W/out the electronics, they are still usable, but not as intended.
What's typical for other IS brands?
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
16x and steady views. Sig Zulu6 16x42 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter rdnzl
- Start date
What's typical for other IS brands?
Conndomat
United States of Europe
Yes, the stabilizer makes the difference, especially at higher magnifications.
A 5 year guarantee on the IS is a lot, here in Germany you only get a 2 year guarantee on the IS, it varies from country to country, North America has better conditions here IMO.
I don't know whether Sig also offers a 5-year guarantee here in Germany, according to legislation for electronics they only have to give a 2-year guarantee.
But the manufacturer is practically unknown here, especially when it comes to binoculars. I think Sig is primarily aimed at the North American market.
Andreas
My 16x just showed up this evening. I immediately went outside to look at Jupiter.
It was awesome - all 4 moons easily seen, crisp discs from all 5 objects. With the IS off, I could make out the moons even though the view was a tad jumpy (to be expected). It was easier to make out the moons than any of the other bins I had to hand (NL 8x32; Kowa 6.5; UV 10x25; VP 8x25); in scan mode - things tamed down quite a bit and there was only the gentlest bit of sway in the view; in target mode there was no movement at all as if they were mounted to a tripod.
Here's the configuration I observed (not the actual image):
For my eyes, the 2nd best view of Jupiter and its moons tonight was in the UV 10x25 - they tamp down on stray light in my urban environment and their small exit pupil eliminate astigmatism issues and I get perfect discs of all the lights in the night sky. The VP is next up - the view is brighter, but that really means I see more light pollution so the sky appears brighter and thus the moons sort of blend a bit more into the sky itself - but I can still make out and see all 4 of them. With the NL 8x32 - I couldn't make out Io - its too close to the planet and my (apparent) astigmatism doesn't allow me to see them as separate/distinct objects, so I'm just not able to "see" Io in this configuration. The Kowa view is worse than the NL.
The moon and most of the planets are not visible tonight as Earth or buildings are currently obstructing my view. I missed Saturn but saw Neptune (it just looked like a bright orangish star).
I live very close to DFW airport and Love Field isn't far away either so there are a LOT of airplanes flying around in view and it was very interesting to watch them tonight in comparison to my other bins. The lights on each plane were super clear - red on one wing, green on the opposite, and blinking white in the middle. Normally, its hard to see the lights as separate and clearly distinct sources (likely due to lack of magnification or astigmatism).
I'm looking forward to using them in the day!
Elpha8888
Well-known member
Thanks tx that's a great report, seems like they could be ideal. I'm wanting to try these mainly for astronomy, although they should be awesome for daytime too.
Dennis rates these very highly! Trouble is finding a pair here in the UK is a little tricky.
Would love to see Neptune
Just back from first morning out with the 16x.
These are fantastic for observing ducks. The difference in magnification is extremely noticeable and therefore the details on the ducks are striking in comparison to lower magnification (for me at least).
Take the seemingly simple Bufflehead. Normally, while a very striking bird, it looks basically simple black and white. Though, I'm always amazed at just how pure of a white the duck manages to look while living outdoors all its life. Today, between the magnification, IS, and the play of light against the ducks movements - the head revealed hues of both purple and green - the first time I've noticed that.
The color patterns on a Green Winged Teal were similarly impressive. The green eye stripe against the red head was a brilliant sight.
The normally slightly drab Gadwall was easy to pick out. The female easily differentiated from female Mallards due to the clear differences on the wing above the leg - the blue/white patch of the Mallard being conspicuously obvious or absent.
These are fantastic for observing ducks. The difference in magnification is extremely noticeable and therefore the details on the ducks are striking in comparison to lower magnification (for me at least).
Take the seemingly simple Bufflehead. Normally, while a very striking bird, it looks basically simple black and white. Though, I'm always amazed at just how pure of a white the duck manages to look while living outdoors all its life. Today, between the magnification, IS, and the play of light against the ducks movements - the head revealed hues of both purple and green - the first time I've noticed that.
The color patterns on a Green Winged Teal were similarly impressive. The green eye stripe against the red head was a brilliant sight.
The normally slightly drab Gadwall was easy to pick out. The female easily differentiated from female Mallards due to the clear differences on the wing above the leg - the blue/white patch of the Mallard being conspicuously obvious or absent.
Have you tried them at dusk ? I'm wondering about performance low light conditions (for wildlife spotting, on woods edge), and found someone compaining on Amazon (" Also you cant see anything in low light. Its cheap glass wrapped in a poorly executed good idea.")
I also found a complaint on Sig Sauer product page ("Glass is terrible in poor light conditions. Great binos in good light. If you have the extra money to spend, good buy for an extra set of binos. They don’t replace my swaros"). However, I'm unsure the Kite Optics APC42, that I'm also considering, perform any better.
I got my 20x42 from Amazon UK. Very straightforward.Thanks tx that's a great report, seems like they could be ideal. I'm wanting to try these mainly for astronomy, although they should be awesome for daytime too.
Dennis rates these very highly! Trouble is finding a pair here in the UK is a little tricky.
Would love to see Neptune
I tried Zeiss 20x60 IS binos ~30 years ago. It was awesome to completely get rid of all micro shakings. I think I have tried another IS device after that but don't remember which one.
I think IS more than any other usage is an advantage in astronomy. Even with 8x it feels more shaky than at daytime use. I understand how superior IS is even at 8x, and even more if I can use twice the magnification.
The wondering I have is: do I dare getting IS bino? Is there a risk I don't want to use normal binos at all again after that? 🤔
I think IS more than any other usage is an advantage in astronomy. Even with 8x it feels more shaky than at daytime use. I understand how superior IS is even at 8x, and even more if I can use twice the magnification.
The wondering I have is: do I dare getting IS bino? Is there a risk I don't want to use normal binos at all again after that? 🤔
The IS is a real help when observing small birds in treetops, especially in windy conditions.
It filters out the microshakes generated by hand holding, so one can focus on the actual bird. Ditto for birds in flight or a long ways away.
Reverting back to regular binoculars is no problem, but you will find muscle memory has you stabbing the non existent IS button.
Elpha8888
Well-known member
Thanks, will take a look 😃
Hello everyone, I'm asking owners of HDX 16X42 SIG SAUER. Have you noticed quite intrusive flashes in the field of vision when observing landscapes? My copy is affected by it and it's quite annoying for me. The image/background is not in focus, but even when focusing it remains.
Thanks
Thanks
Attachments
Last edited:
forent
Well-known member
Google translation:
Hello everyone, I'm asking owners of HDX 16X42 SIG SAUER. Have you noticed quite intrusive flashes in the field of vision when observing landscapes? My specimen is affected by it and it's quite annoying for me. Thank you
Return them and keep your Canon12x36 IS III if you have to have an IS binocular. The Zulu6 OIS 16x42 has bad glare problems, with veiling glare covering the entire FOV. it took me awhile to see the glare. I got rid of mine and went back to a good quality 8x42 binocular. The Canon 12x36 IS III is a good IS binocular, but the view of the bird even though it is steady is not near as nice as through a mid-priced or alpha 8x42. From an Amazon.com review below. He is right on.
2.0 out of 5 stars ally bad veiling flare when sun is within almost 90° of you, stabilizer seems to make it worse
Reviewed in the United States on December 17, 2023
Color: FDEStyle: 16X42mm
Was really excited for these, but regretfully returning them. Chromatic aberration is well controlled and sharpness is good, but even normal daytime sun is enough to provoke terrible veiling flare and huge contrast loss, even when almost fully perpendicular to the sun. Even the color balance between the sunward and shadeward side changes noticeably. The stabilizer appears to make the flare even worse, it resulted in misty flare ghosts that I could toggle on and off repeatedly.
Also, the eyepiece lens caps are incredibly loose, such a cheap afterthought, and the objective lenses are not well shielded and come with no cover. The strap is nice and even has quick-releases, but the final attachment to the binoculars with cheap split rings is incredibly lazy design.
Last edited:
Thanks for your contribution, I hadn't seen it on Amazon.com. I tried it for 15 days and the haze is evident in most observation situations. Always compared alongside my Canon 12x36 which always came out the winner as it doesn't have such haze as well as preferable in terms of overall optical quality/stabilization. The SiG is pleasant in scanning mode as well as fluidity in panning... for the rest, I also preferred the Canon for stabilization and returned to the SIG. I found no looseness defects in the SIG's eyecups. I thought it was an upgrade from the Canon, but that's not the case.
